News & Analysis
Comment
Treecat23
Considering Samsung has the Patent for The "Retina" display used in the ipads ...
tkl1
Refer to Wang vs Mitsubishi*. The original DRAM SIMM patent, JEDEC ...
Apple claims Samsung views patent disclosures as 'stupid'
Rick Merritt
8/17/2012 4:02 PM EDT
Expert: Samsung IP practices in line with others
When it comes to filing disclosures of patents on standards-in-progress at ETSI, turns out pretty much everyone is late, according to an analysis of a public ETSI database by an expert hired by Samsung.
In fact on average Apple was 250 days late in filing notice of its standards-essential patents at ETSI. HTC was 250 days late, and Nokia was 1,000 days late, according to the analysis of David Teece, a business professor at University of California at Berkeley.
Figures for telecom giants “Ericsson and Motorola were similar--we are talking weeks, and months and sometimes years,” said Teece in testimony in the final minutes of the Apple vs. Samsung case. “They don’t hardly ever disclose until the patents issue,” he said.
“The practice at ETSI is companies frequently provide information about patents after they issue,” he added.
For years companies have leveled accusations that competitors have withheld information about their patents until their related proposals are accepted into a standard. The paranoia seems to be easing as companies embrace the idea they must partner broadly to participate in global markets, said an ETSI expert who testified for Apple.
Sometimes companies disclose patents late because, like IBM, they have so many patents they did not know they had any in the standard at issue, he said. Others file late because they acquire patents as part of a corporate merger, he added.
Separately, Teece said he disagreed with testimony from a former TI patent counsel who said Samsung did not offer Apple FRAND terms for its 3G patents. The offer of a royalty rate of 2.4 percent of the handset’s price “was in the range of rates I had seen,” said Teece.
He also noted using the handset’s cost rather than the cost of the infringing baseband controller was in line with industry practice. In addition, a Samsung letter to Apple making the offer also opened the door to negotiations on a cross license, an offer to which Apple did not respond, he said.
The rest of the afternoon was generally filled with rebuttal testimony with experts from both sides attacking experts from the other about the particulars of patents in the case.
Both sides have now rested. Closing arguments are scheduled for Tuesday. By the end of that day the matter will sit with nine San Jose jurors.
When it comes to filing disclosures of patents on standards-in-progress at ETSI, turns out pretty much everyone is late, according to an analysis of a public ETSI database by an expert hired by Samsung.
In fact on average Apple was 250 days late in filing notice of its standards-essential patents at ETSI. HTC was 250 days late, and Nokia was 1,000 days late, according to the analysis of David Teece, a business professor at University of California at Berkeley.
Figures for telecom giants “Ericsson and Motorola were similar--we are talking weeks, and months and sometimes years,” said Teece in testimony in the final minutes of the Apple vs. Samsung case. “They don’t hardly ever disclose until the patents issue,” he said.
“The practice at ETSI is companies frequently provide information about patents after they issue,” he added.
For years companies have leveled accusations that competitors have withheld information about their patents until their related proposals are accepted into a standard. The paranoia seems to be easing as companies embrace the idea they must partner broadly to participate in global markets, said an ETSI expert who testified for Apple.
Sometimes companies disclose patents late because, like IBM, they have so many patents they did not know they had any in the standard at issue, he said. Others file late because they acquire patents as part of a corporate merger, he added.
Separately, Teece said he disagreed with testimony from a former TI patent counsel who said Samsung did not offer Apple FRAND terms for its 3G patents. The offer of a royalty rate of 2.4 percent of the handset’s price “was in the range of rates I had seen,” said Teece.
He also noted using the handset’s cost rather than the cost of the infringing baseband controller was in line with industry practice. In addition, a Samsung letter to Apple making the offer also opened the door to negotiations on a cross license, an offer to which Apple did not respond, he said.
The rest of the afternoon was generally filled with rebuttal testimony with experts from both sides attacking experts from the other about the particulars of patents in the case.
Both sides have now rested. Closing arguments are scheduled for Tuesday. By the end of that day the matter will sit with nine San Jose jurors.
|
|
|
|
|
Navigate to related information
rick.merritt
8/17/2012 5:28 PM EDT
Are you aware of any companies who have filed their patent disclosures after the relevant standard closed?
How prevalent is this practice?
Sign in to Reply
resistion
8/18/2012 12:00 AM EDT
Even with a substantial number of disclosures before standards finalized, afterwards even more standards-compatible disclosures should be expected.
Sign in to Reply
goafrit
8/17/2012 5:37 PM EDT
I pity Samsung. This is hurting their credibility as a technical company. Apple is beating them in the marketing/PR side of this trial
Sign in to Reply
Frank Eory
8/17/2012 6:47 PM EDT
How bizarre that he answered the question about whether Samsung practices FRAND licensing with a "no." Do you think maybe he misunderstood the question?
Sign in to Reply
daleste
8/17/2012 10:04 PM EDT
Apple is a great company. I enjoy seeing them do well in these proceedings. If Samsung was genuine in their motives, they would look a lot better in the court.
Sign in to Reply
Greg.Dee
8/18/2012 1:10 AM EDT
Well depends what you read. Apple would have you believe they invented everything if they could pull it off.
Sign in to Reply
resistion
8/17/2012 11:58 PM EDT
This soap opera should continue as the losing side appeals..
Sign in to Reply
Greg.Dee
8/18/2012 1:13 AM EDT
Why do i get the feeling that this blog is pro Apple (as most "writers" are) ? and A jury of 9 San Jose residents? Talk about set up. I think Merritt should disclose what products he uses personally.
Sign in to Reply
rick.merritt
8/18/2012 2:44 AM EDT
I'm doing my best to walk the line of objectivity.
And if you really are interested I use a Lenovo Windows PC and an iPhone, both supplied by my company.
Sign in to Reply
SiliconAsia
8/18/2012 11:16 AM EDT
I agree. We should ban him from writing to EETIMES.
Sign in to Reply
Thomas "Rick" Tewell
8/19/2012 4:45 AM EDT
Greg.Dee and SiliconAsia, can it. Rick is doing a great job covering this trial. Geez...lighten up. Apple's attorneys are obviously well coached in the "marketing message" and in the end Apple wants to make sure their "message" is communicated even through this trial. Mr. Merritt is just reporting the facts clearly and I for one appreciate his work. It is fascinating to read. BTW - I am not an Apple "fan boy" - I work for Fujitsu. I do, however, have an iPad and I love it. I use a BlackBerry for my phone - just in case anybody is interested :)
Sign in to Reply
Greg.Dee
8/18/2012 1:14 AM EDT
http://mashable.com/2012/08/16/apple-lawyers-smoking-crack-samsung/
Sign in to Reply
Greg.Dee
8/18/2012 1:15 AM EDT
Another point of view maybe... http://mashable.com/2012/08/16/apple-lawyers-smoking-crack-samsung/
Sign in to Reply
Sheetal.Pandey
8/18/2012 6:54 AM EDT
Looks like Apple has the right strategy to win the case. After all in the courtroom the perception does matter if the point can be proven.
Sign in to Reply
m00nshine
8/18/2012 8:28 AM EDT
How many Apple fans would feel this trial was fair if it was being held in Seoul with a Korean jury and covered primarily by Korean journalists? It is true the entire trial and the coverage is naturally biased in favor of apple.
Sign in to Reply
t.alex
8/18/2012 10:28 AM EDT
I think the trial is in US because Samsung his selling the infringing products in US?
Sign in to Reply
m00nshine
8/18/2012 11:15 AM EDT
your point not relevant regarding perceived bias based on trial location
Sign in to Reply
wilber_xbox
8/20/2012 7:14 AM EDT
the perceived bias is unjust. Does it mean that any company with US origin can have favorable situation if it is HQ in US?
Sign in to Reply
SiliconAsia
8/18/2012 11:21 AM EDT
Judge said both companies have certain risks on this trial. I don't believe it's one way street. This whole thing got started by Samsung demanding 2.4% of royalty on iPhone/iPAD products using Samsung patents. The early negotiation failed but if you look at the number of patents Samsung owns (Second largest after IBM), Apple does not even seem to come close to being an high tech company
in terms of number of patents owned.
Sign in to Reply
Stanley_
8/18/2012 1:49 PM EDT
This whole thing got started by Apple suing Samsung asking banning samsung cell phone from being sold in US. Samsung countered by communication patent.
Sign in to Reply
hm
8/19/2012 8:32 PM EDT
US is perhaps the best place for trial. Good luck to Apple.
Sign in to Reply
rwik78
8/19/2012 9:23 PM EDT
Rick, please keep up the great work.... I am following the trial through your arcticles.... Thanks for presenting an impartial view.
Sign in to Reply
wilber_xbox
8/20/2012 7:17 AM EDT
Rick, thanks for keeping the good work ethics. however, sometime i perceive your article to be biased towards Apple. I do not know whether it is because the case has been so till now.
Sign in to Reply
agk
8/20/2012 8:23 AM EDT
The trail is going on. What will happen after the judgement? Suppose Apple wins will Samsung will bring another new model to sell in USA? or if Samsung wins will Apple going to pay royalty to Samusung? or if both win in their respective patents Apple and Samsung will continue to sell their same products world wide?
Sign in to Reply
gatorfan
8/20/2012 9:04 PM EDT
It's being tried in the US because the issue is US issued patents. Take the tin foil hats off folks. Or suspend the fan-boi attitudes. What Rick has reported has irked me both ways, that means he's doing his job.
Sign in to Reply
I_B_GREEN
8/21/2012 2:05 PM EDT
standards rules do not trump law patent or otherwise.
What is a "timely manner".
If this were to be upheld in court it could only allow for the untimly time for relief. All other times would require a royalty payment. Or swapping royalty payments.
Sign in to Reply
tkl1
8/21/2012 8:19 PM EDT
Refer to Wang vs Mitsubishi*. The original DRAM SIMM patent, JEDEC standardization and Wang's attempt to claim royalties. 1983.
Wang lost both the jury trial and on appeals.
The obligations of Standards Developing Organizations (SDOs) are becoming more and more clear with every court case. If you participate in an SDO, disclose your patent applications, or don't expect royalties.
More recently, a well-known DRAM IP firm spent hundreds of millions in an effort to defend itself. But it finally lost its latest case against an Idaho memory company re: key synchronous DRAM patents. The IP firm failed to disclose key patent applications to standards committees, while it was a member of an SDO in the mid-1990's.
* Wang Laboratories, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc. and Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, 103 F.3d 1571; 41 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1263 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Sign in to Reply
Treecat23
9/5/2012 4:03 PM EDT
Considering Samsung has the Patent for The "Retina" display used in the ipads and the fact they manufacture most of Apple's hardware can backfire for Apple. If Apple wins, say goodbye to the Ipad 2,ipod,mac,etc. Also Apple is suing samsung because their tablet is too "square", Apple actually has patented the square with rounded edges. That is the worst judicial allowment ever.Come sue me too Apple, my table is a square. Also Apple's slide to unlock feature is a metaphor. And in Apples 1988-1994 court battle, it was decided illegal to patent a metaphor. Yet another judicial error/ law breaking streak in apple. Die Crapple die!!!
Love ya Samsung
Sign in to Reply